So I have finally managed to work some science into this blog, it's not exactly astronomy on but it's certainly interesting. I found the following paper in the basement archives of the University library:
In summary some guys shot an elephant with a huge dose of LSD and it died. Then they wrote a paper about it and got it publised in Science
The entire paper makes for an interesting read and certainly highlights some huge differences in how people approach science today compared to how they did in the early sixties. There is one section that really sticks out in my mind, it is the following:
Let me just underscore what a monumentally bad idea this is: In effect the researchers made the approximation that an elephant is a humungous cat, completely neglecting that obvious fact that elephants and cats are not the same animal, and that the dose they had chosen would be enough to fuck a human up pretty comprehensively.
They then seemed somewhat surprised when their high-precision, well thought out calculations failed them. Gee, I didn't see that one coming. How did they conclude that this was a good idea?
There are also mentions throughout the paper of experiments done on other animals
and
I don't know what it is about this paper that fascinates me so much. Maybe it's the fact that it highlights the difference in scientist's attitudes towards animals back then; maybe it's the fact that it went spectacularly wrong but the authors soldiered on regardless and published a paper on 'killing an elephant with LSD'; maybe it gives me hope that Science will accept some of my work someday; maybe it's the completely arbitrary decision that elephants are the same thing as giant cats, or maybe I like it just because it's so incredibly unexpected and random that I can't help but smile, poor Tusko.
West, LJ, Pierce, CM, Thomas, WD (1962) Lysergic Acid
Diethylamide: Its effect on a Male Asiatic Elephant. Science, 138,1100-1102In summary some guys shot an elephant with a huge dose of LSD and it died. Then they wrote a paper about it and got it publised in Science
The entire paper makes for an interesting read and certainly highlights some huge differences in how people approach science today compared to how they did in the early sixties. There is one section that really sticks out in my mind, it is the following:
The effecting of even a transient rage reaction in the cat usually requires intravenous administration of at least 0.1mg/kg ... The amount of LSD finally administered to Tusko {that's the elephant's name btw}, by intramuscular injection was 0.1mg/kg, or 297mg ... If the elephant's sensitivity were of order of that of a human being, this would represent a considerable overdose.Let me just underscore what a monumentally bad idea this is: In effect the researchers made the approximation that an elephant is a humungous cat, completely neglecting that obvious fact that elephants and cats are not the same animal, and that the dose they had chosen would be enough to fuck a human up pretty comprehensively.
They then seemed somewhat surprised when their high-precision, well thought out calculations failed them. Gee, I didn't see that one coming. How did they conclude that this was a good idea?
There are also mentions throughout the paper of experiments done on other animals
Doses of up to 6.5mg/kg are required to kill a catand
In order to produce in the rhesus macaque a sensory blockade sufficient to cause loss of position sense and temporary blindness, Evarts gave doses of up to 6.5mg/kgI don't know what it is about this paper that fascinates me so much. Maybe it's the fact that it highlights the difference in scientist's attitudes towards animals back then; maybe it's the fact that it went spectacularly wrong but the authors soldiered on regardless and published a paper on 'killing an elephant with LSD'; maybe it gives me hope that Science will accept some of my work someday; maybe it's the completely arbitrary decision that elephants are the same thing as giant cats, or maybe I like it just because it's so incredibly unexpected and random that I can't help but smile, poor Tusko.
